Although a paperless form-processing system was first proposed some time ago, it cannot be said that paperless form-processing systems are in widespread use today, due to the complexity of slip processing, problems in handling exceptional processing, and the like. To computerize a large number of slips requires a simple way of defining forms and routes, and a flexible routing function for implementing an approval system.
Related work is disclosed in the gazettes of Japanese Patent Laid-Open Nos. Hei 10(1998)-49603, Hei 10(1998)-177610 and Hei 5(1993)-216736, for example. The gazette of Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. Hei 10(1998)-49603 discloses a technique for preventing leakage of confidential information in the following manner. When data is circulated from a process A to a different process B, data to be defined by process A is set so that the data cannot be read by process B.
The gazette of Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. Hei 10(1998)-177610 discloses a technique for simplifying operations in the following manner. In a workflow system for prescribing operations to be performed by a plurality of persons in charge and passing data between the persons in charge, prescribed data conversion is executed before assigning operations to a next person in charge. Thus, documents in different forms are transmitted to the persons in charge according to the contents of the documents.
The gazette of Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. Hei 5(1993)-216736 discloses the following technique. When the destination of a computerized document (slip) varies according to the content of the document or according to the identity of an issuer of the document, a route rule and an addressee, which depend on the document to be processed, are determined by referring to an organizational directory.
As described above, conventional workflow systems may define a route for determining individual persons in charge by referring to data, and a route for designating a fixed external workflow definition, in order to dynamically change a circulation route according to data values. However, although duties for dynamically designating a department in charge are general, it is necessary to define a workflow which considers the specific case where the in-department circulation route varies for every department and also varies according to the maximum number of departments to which data is to be circulated.
In the case where a person-in-charge-level dynamic route or a workflow definition using a fixed external route and a conditional branch is used, the route becomes more complicated in proportion to the maximum number of departments to which data is to be circulated. Thus, it becomes difficult even to give an accurate definition due to the large number of combinations of flow conditions. For example, in the case where an electronic form approval system is used to circulate a form in order to get approval of a decision, frequently the form is concurrently sent to a large number of lower-level departments whose approvals must all be secured before requesting higher-level approval. However, patterns of approvals may vary according to each department. Moreover, the departments to which the form is sent vary according to its subject. Consequently, some forms may be circulated to tens of departments.
To automate such activities has heretofore required the use of an exclusive development tool or the like. However, for example as described above in designing a form to be circulated to tens of departments and an approval route, the design of a workflow is necessarily based on the assumed maximum number of departments. Thus, the display screen of the development tool becomes large and complicated, which causes not only complex user operation, but also high costs when changing designs in response to organizational changes. In order to make a complicated dynamic change in a workflow, such as switching routes, it is necessary to develop an exclusive program and execute the program halfway through the workflow.